Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 1,284
- Reactions
- 1,276
Apparently I can't edit in a sensible way right now....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Damnit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a Web Dev.Apparently I can't edit in a sensible way right now....
Apparently I can't edit in a sensible way right now....
Taxes come in many shapes and forms.
+++++++++++
Then.....
The simple notion of drug usage for me, is.....
YES.....there might be some drug users who could/maybe function and take care of themselves and their families. BUT, there are also those who don't and/or can't function while living the drug lifestyle. And, those "destructive stories" are all over.
So then.....
IMHO....If.....someone chooses to do drugs and/or chooses to be in that lifestyle.....
"Why do I need to pay for them, their kids and wife (GF. BF or whatever)?"
It's called "responsibility".
I made my family and I paid for my family to have the things that I could afford for them. But.....a big chunk of my pay got/gets taken out......to "help" fund those who have chosen the drug lifestyle.
Fix that. Before we/you open the door to any more stupidness.
Aloha, Mark
Great post. My understanding is that prisons are not reallly full of people busted for simple possession. Regardless, in our current culture of dismissing responsibilty for certain crowds, how do we deal with the associated issues of drug addiction? I expect a massive increase in treatment centers, funded by the apparently bottomless pit of taxpayer cash. Personally, when these addicts commit crimes to fuel their addiction, I'd just as soon see them locked up.This extends to just about any stupidity that any person can engage in. Whether it is gambling or drinking too much alcohol (a legal drug and one that causes more of these kinds of problems than other drugs, it is just much easier to hide alcoholism than it is an addiction to meth, etc.) or riding a motorcycle without a helmet, or shooting oneself in the foot.
As you say, it is about responsibility - a concept I take very seriously. I AM responsible for my family because I brought my daughter into this world. I am responsible for myself.
I am NOT responsible for some stranger who does something stupid, or who has had some bad thing happen to them (cancer, lost their job, whatever). I did not cause them to do something stupid. I didn't cause something bad to happen to them.
Every dollar that is taken from me to pay for someone else's living costs is one less dollar that I have to provide for my family. When it gets down to it, for me, it is about $45 out of every $100 (if I do not take action to avoid taxes by deferring earned income into something tax protected or otherwise avoid taxes some other way - and even then, I always pay 6-13% FICA tax on that income before I can defer it).
The socialists say it is my "duty". Duty is an obligation. A debt. Just how did I acquire that debt? They can't really say - just that it is. Ayn Rand had a theory about them saying it was "original sin" and that probably is not too far off - their (socialist's) reasoning sounds suspiciously like that concept.
Socialist's say it is the price for having a "better world", etc., etc. as if that is a valid justification for stealing what I earn and giving it to someone else.
Thing is, I think about 90% of the populace in first world countries believe this BS to one degree or another. even the "classic liberals" (Hayek, Friedman, et. al.) allowed for some for of socialism to be necessary (although they didn't use that term).
It didn't take long for this country to step over the line to socialism - as far back as the early 1800s Congress was giving away $ for social purposes, money that wasn't theirs to give away in that fashion. Also, early on, Congress passed laws violating the First Amendment (the Alien Sedition acts) just as another example of how it didn't take long for politicians to ignore the Constitution they swore to uphold.
Just the same, one wrong does not justify another. Just because the country & people say I am somehow responsible for other's misfortune or mistakes, does not make it right to put people in prison for their stupidity that does not directly harm others. Not to mention that we all know that prohibition, whether it is prohibiting alcohol, or guns or drugs - not only does not work, but makes things worse.
The socialists use circular reasoning for all this; first they say that somehow we are responsible for others. Then they say that they have the right to infringe on the rights of others because we are responsible for them. This is the reasoning they use for motorcycle helmet laws, seat belt laws, taxes on junk food and so on - not to mention gun control. We are no better when we use that same reasoning for putting people in prison for simple possession of drugs.
Taxes come in many shapes and forms.
+++++++++++
Then.....
The simple notion of drug usage for me, is.....
YES.....there might be some drug users who could/maybe function and take care of themselves and their families. BUT, there are also those who don't and/or can't function while living the drug lifestyle. And, those "destructive stories" are all over.
So then.....
IMHO....If.....someone chooses to do drugs and/or chooses to be in that lifestyle.....
"Why do I need to pay for them, their kids and wife (GF. BF or whatever)?"
It's called "responsibility".
I made my family and I paid for my family to have the things that I could afford for them. But.....a big chunk of my pay got/gets taken out......to "help" fund those who have chosen the drug lifestyle.
Fix that. Before we/you open the door to any more stupidness.
Aloha, Mark
Great post. My understanding is that prisons are not reallly full of people busted for simple possession. Regardless, in our current culture of dismissing responsibilty for certain crowds, how do we deal with the associated issues of drug addiction? I expect a massive increase in treatment centers, funded by the apparently bottomless pit of taxpayer cash. Personally, when these addicts commit crimes to fuel their addiction, I'd just as soon see them locked up.
I like posts with sources.Number of arrests in 2018 in the U.S. for drug law violations: 1,654,282
Number of drug arrests that were for possession only: 1,429,299
Number of people arrested for a marijuana law violation in 2018: 663,367
Number of those charged with marijuana law violations who were arrested for possession only: 608,775
View attachment 834358
I think you misunderstood my post. I clearly stated "prisons" and "simple possession". You retorted with a list of arrests, charged for possession, and a chart that encompasses "drug offense". El Chapo is included in this chart.Number of arrests in 2018 in the U.S. for drug law violations: 1,654,282
Number of drug arrests that were for possession only: 1,429,299
Number of people arrested for a marijuana law violation in 2018: 663,367
Number of those charged with marijuana law violations who were arrested for possession only: 608,775
View attachment 834358
Wow...that's a terrible statute.Its an interesting issue with the possession RCW. Its been revised several times, but it was never revised to state that someone must knowingly be in possession. WA is the only state that doesn't have wording requiring mens rea. Rather than fix the statute and other statutes that lack the wording, they did this lazy fix:
RCW 9A.04.060: Common law to supplement statute.
app.leg.wa.gov
Crimes get them locked up, regardless of possession. The key is when you harm others, then you need to be in jail.Great post. My understanding is that prisons are not reallly full of people busted for simple possession. Regardless, in our current culture of dismissing responsibilty for certain crowds, how do we deal with the associated issues of drug addiction? I expect a massive increase in treatment centers, funded by the apparently bottomless pit of taxpayer cash. Personally, when these addicts commit crimes to fuel their addiction, I'd just as soon see them locked up.
I think you misunderstood my post. I clearly stated "prisons" and "simple possession". You retorted with a list of arrests, charged for possession, and a chart that encompasses "drug offense". El Chapo is included in this chart.
I think you misunderstood my post. I clearly stated "prisons" and "simple possession". You retorted with a list of arrests, charged for possession, and a chart that encompasses "drug offense". El Chapo is included in this chart.
Additionally, when you get arrested and/or convicted of a felony, you pretty much shoot down your chances of getting/keeping a decent job, thereby increasing your chances of committing crimes later on, thereby increasing crime in general (statistically as a population).
Not saying that this justifies the crime they commit. I am saying the consequences of drug laws making simple possession a felony actually increase crime and poverty.
BOLI : Hiring discrimination and "Ban the Box" : For Workers : State of Oregon
Job applicants are protected from being discriminated against because of protected characteristics like race, gender, and age.www.oregon.gov
A short ways down the page under "For Workers" it explains how employers are not even allowed to ask about criminal convictions. You may agree with this, I don't. But I would like to quit rehashing the 2nd sentence of my post, it wasn't even the point of my post, I was more looking for conversation as to the effects on society for all this drug legalization. I expect an increase in crime, and what do we blame the crime on if drugs are legal? Guns will likely be increasingly used in crimes, so there my be an increased focus on guns. Say someone shoots and kills their spouse. Will it even be reported if the shooter was high on heroin, meth, fentanyl, crack, or other?
As a hiring manager for several years, I was also the firing manager. You fire for cause or non-performance and you document the bubblegum out of it. If you don't hire someone, you take a risk if you tell them why. What I'm trying to say is that there are very legitimate reasons not to document why someone isn't hired, and to use standardized responses. These will coincidentally help mask true discrimination, but they have legitimate use.Employers can and will do a background check.
Employers will also discriminate and it is hard to prove that discrimination because 99.9% of it goes on in the mind of some HR person who throws your resume/application in the trash bin with no comment. Whether it is age, ethnicity or gender or whatever. That said, I don't blame an employer for rejecting a candidate due to a criminal background. I was just saying that this is yet another effect of criminalizing things that should not be a crime.
As for effects on society - those are effects.
If legalized or decriminalized, then those effects would probably lessen - IMO.
Would crime increase? Time will tell, but in some countries where there has been legalization/decriminalization, I am given to understand that overall crime has decreased.
Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight. | Transform
transformdrugs.org